Psychiatrists win unfair dismissal case after being made to do out of hours workBMJ 2013; 346 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2234 (Published 09 April 2013) Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2234
All rapid responses
This judgement may well be correct in law, with regard to TUPE, but I would suggest it is both short sighted and discriminates against the other colleagues, most of whom also have small children. It is also noteworthy that in Child Psychiatry a very large percentage of consultants are female. This judgement places both the trust and the remaining colleagues in an invideous position with regard to providing 24 hr cover, which was one of the main requirements when the PCT put the service out to tender 3y ago. We are all working to a new contract and 3 out of 11 colleagues not doing a fair share of on-call is a very significant shortfall.
Competing interests: A colleague on the on-call rota
The sentence passed on this case is both correct and wrong/dangerous. It is absolutely fair that the doctors are reinstated on their previous contract, but accepting that the requirement to do on-calls and guarantee 24/7 coverage corresponds to sex discrimination, is wrong and dangerous. Will women working in A&E, intensive care, and indeed all other medical branches be allowed to opt out of night and weekend cover, on the basis that this "disproportionately affects women"?
Competing interests: No competing interests